Is the human gene pool weakening?

[Thermo]

Our medical technology has given us the power to allow people with severe genetic issues to survive and even reproduce. Will this come back to haunt us? Has our medical technology given us the ability to destroy our gene pool in the distant future?

[Serotonin]

Our medical technology has given us the power to allow people with severe genetic issues to survive and even reproduce. Will this come back to haunt us? Has our medical technology given us the ability to destroy our gene pool in the distant future?

No. Firstly, the fact that human ingenuity has been able produce this technology is testament to a strong gene pool in the first place. This nullifies any supposed weakening of the gene pool by people with "severe genetic issues" to reproduce.
Secondly, if you're talking about Down's Syndrome and Fragile X and the like, then it's biologically impossible for people with these conditions to reproduce (I think).
Thirdly, think of all the people who are reproducing in today's Western world. Mostly middle class, well educated people. Of course there are welfare mothers with 8 children etc. etc. but their daughters will also most likely to go on to be welfare mothers too, instead of breeding with middle class men. It's a stratification of society, almost. The people with the gene that supposedly "confers" clever, savvy, educated, middle-class phenotypes will most likely be preserved by our current economic system.

[Pedro_The_Lion]

Those characteristics do not correspond to the genes within those populations as a whole. Take a rich, smart, good looking kid and put him in a poor family and he will (for the most part) fit the statistics of a poor individual.

[Miss Anthropic]

NO!

[Sackanaka]

There are more important issues at hand, like how to tell your non-English speaking grandmother that you shouldn't microwave Arbie's burgers in their foilplated wrapping.

It may be a bit odd, but I don't see the human species as a collective whole; that is, I don't consider our genetics becoming increasingly "faulty" as anything to worry too much about, as a descendent is just as separate an entity from us as are contemporary animals. In other words, why worry about it when we're not going to be directly affected? Evolution will continue, it's not like the human race will instantly vanish; if so, we'll have bigger problems than this.

[cjs55]

Those characteristics do not correspond to the genes within those populations as a whole. Take a rich, smart, good looking kid and put him in a poor family and he will (for the most part) fit the statistics of a poor individual.

Do you have any evidence for this?


And its begun to weaken, and will continue to do so due to the current idealogy of the time (points to sig)

[moni]

There are more important issues at hand, like how to tell your non-English speaking grandmother that you shouldn't microwave Arbie's burgers in their foilplated wrapping.


Aiya... she did that?

Yes, people with certain genetic defects, whom would've died if it wasn't for technology, are able to reproduce. But I don't think it'll destroy our gene pool in the future....

[jimkopelli]

Those characteristics do not correspond to the genes within those populations as a whole. Take a rich, smart, good looking kid and put him in a poor family and he will (for the most part) fit the statistics of a poor individual.Do you have any evidence for this?
Yes! Watch Trading Places, with Murphy and Murray.
(joking.)

I'd like to point you all to a similar thread (http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3058)...

[Boneca]

Our medical technology has given us the power to allow people with severe genetic issues to survive and even reproduce. Will this come back to haunt us? Has our medical technology given us the ability to destroy our gene pool in the distant future?No. We don't know how the situation will be in the distant future, and therefore we cannot say what will be a good genotype then. What we see as genetic issues today might turn out to be an advantage in the future.

An example of a genetic issue that is also an advantage is sickle-cell anemia...the people who are (healthy) carriers of that disease are immune to malaria.

I'd say that best way to destroy our gene pool is to reduce variety by only allowing perfectly healthy people to breed.

[Architectonic]

Yes, on the contrary to thermo's reasoning, the only 'weakening' of a gene pool is in the reduction of available/possible genes.

[cjs55]

So evolution (and sexual selection) is only the process of the weakening of gene pools as certain genes become extinct due to natural selection?

Not all genes are equal or good. Some would be purged immediately in nature. Some would cause harm to their communities and be purged by humans themselves. Either way 'bad genes' would be kept in check by natural or sexual selection.

[Senor Frog]

The genetic disadvantages we see today were already in the gene pool, or we wouldn't be seeing them. When people with them survive and even reproduce it doesn't "weaken" the gene pool at all. It's really just not "strengthening" the gene pool. And i agree that the only way to weaken the gene pool is to lessen genetic diversity.

[Architectonic]

Not all genes are equal or good. Some would be purged immediately in nature. Some would cause harm to their communities and be purged by humans themselves. Either way 'bad genes' would be kept in check by natural or sexual selection.

I think you are missing the point of evolution. Evolution is not some magic system that has the long-term survival of a particular species at heart, that does its work by purging 'bad' genes and allowing 'good' genes to continue. Genes can only be good or bad in context. In the context of evolution, the genes are only necessarily 'bad' at the time of reproduction. It doesn't necessarily imply anything about the future.

[Miss Anthropic]

Where is VagusX when we need him to explain this stuff!

[ApeTheDog]

I don't see how allowing (what a fantastically illchosen word this is, by the way. As if we have a right to disallow anybody to reproduce) anybody to reproduce is going to have an effect on the gene pool. It would still be the genetically perfect people who will always be picked to spread more of their genes than the others. The ugly bastard will be able to father some children, sure, but generally the succesful rich, virile businessman will always father more of them (mistresses, multiple marriages, and so on...) hence increasing the share his genes take up in the gene pool and thus carrying on evolution.

[coffeezombie]

I don't see how allowing (what a fantastically illchosen word this is, by the way. As if we have a right to disallow anybody to reproduce) anybody to reproduce is going to have an effect on the gene pool. It would still be the genetically perfect people who will always be picked to spread more of their genes than the others. The ugly bastard will be able to father some children, sure, but generally the succesful rich, virile businessman will always father more of them (mistresses, multiple marriages, and so on...) hence increasing the share his genes take up in the gene pool and thus carrying on evolution.

At least in this country, it is mostly poor people or very religious people that have lots of kids, not the rich elite.

[Thermo]

At least in this country, it is mostly poor people or very religious people that have lots of kids, not the rich elite.
Yeah, I disagree as well. The rich invest more time and money in fewer children. I think the philosophy behind this is to give a few children the best chance to reproduce. The poor invest more time in creating more children and hope for more possibilities to reproduce.

[coffeezombie]

Yeah, I disagree as well. The rich invest more time and money in fewer children. I think the philosophy behind this is to give a few children the best chance to reproduce. The poor invest more time in creating more children and hope for more possibilities to reproduce.

Right, that's a pretty good analysis on the surface. And if you believe in memetic theory, the very religious have many children as this is what will allow the meme to spread more among the population.

[ApeTheDog]

Yeah, you three are right. I hadn't thought about it very deeply, since it all seems a bit absurd. But it's true that for now, the poor people are winning the gene wars.

However, should eugenetics kick in, and permit rich people to purchase the finest selections of genes for their beloved children, the scales will turn!

[cjs55]

I think you are missing the point of evolution. Evolution is not some magic system that has the long-term survival of a particular species at heart, that does its work by purging 'bad' genes and allowing 'good' genes to continue. Genes can only be good or bad in context. In the context of evolution, the genes are only necessarily 'bad' at the time of reproduction. It doesn't necessarily imply anything about the future.

A] We as a species have evolved and survived. B] Whatever genes that would make that survival harder would be 'bad'. Today, since our survival is mainly threatened by war and disease, not predators, there would be a different sence of what is 'good' or 'bad'. Unfortunately, evolution or sexual selection would not help in this new definition.

The reason I put 'bad' and 'bad genes' in quotes is because I know that that is a subjective label I'm using. I hoped you would pick up on that.

I'm really not sure what your point is otherwise.

And yes, Thermo breaks out an argument bound to cause flame wars once it is realized what it implies on a larger scheme, presented somewhat in this book. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1560001461/104-4478305-1661558)

[Jacque]

Right, that's a pretty good analysis on the surface. And if you believe in memetic theory, the very religious have many children as this is what will allow the meme to spread more among the population.

Isn't it observed in nature though that creatures who reproduce on a massive scale, begin life with the odds being greatly against them. Survivability seems to counter balance the advantages. In fact the larger creatures, whose parenting requires more investment, usually feast on the newborns, creating an almost parasitic life cycle, in which their survival depends on this large nutritional influx.

[coffeezombie]

Isn't it observed in nature though that creatures who reproduce on a massive scale, begin life with the odds being greatly against them. Survivability seems to counter balance the advantages. In fact the larger creatures, whose parenting requires more investment, usually feast on the newborns, creating an almost parasitic life cycle, in which their survival depends on this large nutritional influx.

Well humans don't do this, obviously. Past population growth has been tempered by disease, wars and a large amount of land still able to be settled. Therefore, it was okay for humans to be somewhat fecund. Now there seems to be no real obstacle to population growth unless we somehow manage to nuke or drop bio-bombs on ourselves. It's one of the reasons that I strongly believe in developing more resources on space travel and the eventual colonization of space.

[Thermo]

Yeah, you three are right. I hadn't thought about it very deeply, since it all seems a bit absurd. But it's true that for now, the poor people are winning the gene wars.

However, should eugenetics kick in, and permit rich people to purchase the finest selections of genes for their beloved children, the scales will turn!
I don't think that is necessarily true on a national or global level. The children of the rich have better education and medical care and thus a longer life and more opportunity to reproduce. They also can be more selective about who they reproduce with. The poor are the inverse, less likely to get the opportunity or live long enough to. Look at the death rate in Africa versus America.

[coffeezombie]

I don't think that is necessarily true on a national or global level. The children of the rich have better education and medical care and thus a longer life and more opportunity to reproduce. They also can be more selective about who they reproduce with. The poor are the inverse, less likely to get the opportunity or live long enough to. Look at the death rate in Africa versus America.

More opportunity to reproduce is not the same as more actual reproducing.

[melancholeric]

I don't think that is necessarily true on a national or global level. The children of the rich have better education and medical care and thus a longer life and more opportunity to reproduce. They also can be more selective about who they reproduce with. The poor are the inverse, less likely to get the opportunity or live long enough to. Look at the death rate in Africa versus America.
Yeah, and check the population growth in Africa vs America while you're at it. Western population seems to be actually declining, much unlike 3rd world population who are breeding like rabbits ( except China, they know how to handle these kinds of problems... ).

[booyalab]

I don't think that is necessarily true on a national or global level. The children of the rich have better education and medical care and thus a longer life and more opportunity to reproduce. They also can be more selective about who they reproduce with. The poor are the inverse, less likely to get the opportunity or live long enough to. Look at the death rate in Africa versus America.
poverty stricken kids tend to have better immunity.

[Miss Anthropic]

poverty stricken kids tend to have better immunity.
This is true! Nothing like exposure to disease that isn't treated due to lack of medical care. By being so germophobic and clean we are babying our immune systems and they don't have to do any of the work.

[Architectonic]

A] We as a species have evolved and survived.

Yes, we're pretty 'lucky' when you think about it. ;)

[coffeezombie]

Yes, we're pretty 'lucky' when you think about it. ;)

Especially considering many other species of the genus Homo happened to die out.

[Thermo]

poverty stricken kids tend to have better immunity.
You would think it would be the opposite. Do you have any research or statistics on this?

[Thermo]

Yeah, and check the population growth in Africa vs America while you're at it. Western population seems to be actually declining, much unlike 3rd world population who are breeding like rabbits ( except China, they know how to handle these kinds of problems... ).
My theory is they are breeding, because the chances of survival are reduced. While the number of people may be increasing the life expectency is almost half of what it is in the United States. I don't imagine the US will decline much in population, because we have the ability to import as many people as we need due to our higher standard of living.

Just take a look at the impact of AIDs in Africa. Don't forget you have drug/alcoholism, warfare, genocide, etc. These all lead to poor mental, physical health, and lower life expectency.

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9903/18/aids.africa.02/

Zimbabwe: from 65 to 39 years
Bostwana: 62 to 40
Burkina Faso: 55 to 46
Burundi: 55 to 46
Cameroon: 59 to 51
Central African Republic: 56 to 49
Republic of Congo: 57 to 47
Congo: 54 to 49
Ethiopia: 51 to 41
Ivory Coast: 57 to 46
Kenya: 66 to 48
Lesotho: 62 to 54
Malawi: 51 to 37
Namibia: 65 to 42
Nigeria: 58 to 54
Rwanda: 54 to 42
South Africa: 65 to 56
Swaziland: 58 to 39
Tanzania: 55 to 46
Uganda: 54 to 43
Zambia: 56 to 37

[melancholeric]

My theory is they are breeding, because the chances of survival are reduced. While the number of people may be increasing the life expectency is almost half of what it is in the United States. I don't imagine the US will decline much in population, because we have the ability to import as many people as we need due to our higher standard of living.

Just take a look at the impact of AIDs in Africa. Don't forget you have drug/alcoholism, warfare, genocide, etc. These all lead to poor mental, physical health, and lower life expectency.

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9903/18/aids.africa.02/

Zimbabwe: from 65 to 39 years
Bostwana: 62 to 40
Burkina Faso: 55 to 46
Burundi: 55 to 46
Cameroon: 59 to 51
Central African Republic: 56 to 49
Republic of Congo: 57 to 47
Congo: 54 to 49
Ethiopia: 51 to 41
Ivory Coast: 57 to 46
Kenya: 66 to 48
Lesotho: 62 to 54
Malawi: 51 to 37
Namibia: 65 to 42
Nigeria: 58 to 54
Rwanda: 54 to 42
South Africa: 65 to 56
Swaziland: 58 to 39
Tanzania: 55 to 46
Uganda: 54 to 43
Zambia: 56 to 37
Ever heard of demographic transition?
Here's a graph to illustrate this:
http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/Demotrans/stagesII.gif

At the first stage, both a) child birth rate[blue] and b) child mortality [red] are high. People are breeding like rabbits because few of the children survive.

As the nation develops, the child mortality reduces. People are still breeding, and the population pretty much explodes. That's the second phase.

During the third phase the birth rate starts slowing down too. Most third world nations are at second or third phase of this. They are breeding precisely because of child mortality, so as many children as possible would survive.

During the fourth phase, the child mortality and birth rates are both quite low. The population is stable (as it was in the first phase), it's not growing anymore. This is where most Western nations are/were.

The fifth phase is somewhat speculated, it takes a long time to detect changes in this. However, it seems that in most Western nations, the population is indeed declining. A fertile woman would have to have on average 2.1 children during her life to keep the population from declining, and the average is lower than that.

You simpy cannot deny that 3rd world population wouldn't be growing faster than 1st world. Atleast, if you've passed elementary school.

Edit: Forgot this the first time. Immigration is irrelevant. We're talking about genes here, right?

[Clara]

So evolution (and sexual selection) is only the process of the weakening of gene pools as certain genes become extinct due to natural selection?

Not all genes are equal or good. Some would be purged immediately in nature. Some would cause harm to their communities and be purged by humans themselves. Either way 'bad genes' would be kept in check by natural or sexual selection.
cjs55, you've expressed similar thoughts, before. ( I like you, I like how you express your opinions -- and I disagree with this. )

Not for the first time, I'm thinking : Oh, really ? So, you can "read" how your ancestry has led to... you ? Or, that anyone can ?

Or, wow, I'd bet many people blindly believe, e.g., that humans can't percieve pheromones -- or have even understood how pheromones work, when they fulfill their purpose.

Or, statistics are one thing. Real life -- everything that really matters -- happens on a personal level, through an accumulation of daily efforts.

And I think : those who think they can predict, are most often surprised ( if they're keeping their eyes, and attention, open to see how things actually do turn out).

[Darren]

poverty stricken kids tend to have better immunity.

I suspect that's because the ones with poor immunity *die* of something when they are infants, and thereby avoid depressing the 'average immunity'.

[Lucas]

poverty stricken kids tend to have better immunity.

This is a myth. True poverty is almost always associated with more health problems and disease. Sure, maybe they have immunity to the flu or other common bacteria, but they are the milliones that still die of TB, respatory infections, cholera, etc almost ad infinitum. A immune system constantly exposed to bacteria-virii is weaker and has a smaller capacity for fighting infections in the long run.

[Thermo]

This is a myth. True poverty is almost always associated with more health problems and disease. Sure, maybe they have immunity to the flu or other common bacteria, but they are the milliones that still die of TB, respatory infections, cholera, etc almost ad infinitum. A immune system constantly exposed to bacteria-virii is weaker and has a smaller capacity for fighting infections in the long run.
I don't have data to back this up, but I think this is probably more true.